In pursuit of harmony: The social and organisational factors in a professional vocal ensemble

Abstract

How do chamber music ensembles consistently succeed in achieving a level of harmony that many other work groups can only dream of? Through an in-depth case study of a professional vocal ensemble, this study explores some of the factors that underlie the excellence of chamber music ensembles as work groups. Qualitative interview data revealed information about member characteristics, leadership models, task distribution, decision making, relationships, conflicts, the artistic production process, characteristics of good ensemble singing, group aspirations, issues of identity, and challenges as musicians. In particular, the ensemble members’ collective commitment to excellence was striking. Results further revealed that members possess a set of highly relevant personal and interpersonal skills that are manifested both on and off stage: self awareness, restraint, interpersonal awareness, and mutual sensitivity. It is suggested that this set of skills is crucial in enabling musicians to collaborate in pursuit of their collective artistic endeavours.

Keywords

chamber music collaboration group dynamics professional ensembles team effectiveness work groups

Picture the scene: The Swingle Singers, a professional mixed-gender vocal octet, performing in an intimate auditorium in Kings Place, London, in a concert marking the end of the first London A Capella Festival. Song after song, the singers harmoniously coordinated, supported, and complemented each other as they took the audience on a musical journey that was nothing short of extraordinary. As soloist, each singer could effortlessly step into the spotlight and perform with sublime solo quality. As backups, they were equally able to step back and jointly support the soloist with an ethereally beautiful whisper. As the lead was passed on from one singer to another, it was done in such a sinuous fashion that there was never a sense of discontinuity in the flow of music. As an ensemble, the singers collectively executed every phrase with a seamless blend and utmost precision. As they engaged in a harmonious musical dialogue, not only with each other, but with the audience, the product was one of perfect synchronization – eight voices blended so flawlessly that it was almost impossible to discern what each singer was singing. It was as if they had integrated into one glorious instrument, one being played with such technical perfection that it left me, as a listener, pondering: how does a group of eight singers manage to achieve such seamless harmony and cohesion without the direction of a conductor? What are the processes involved in such collective artistic endeavours? What are the factors underlying such a high level of group work?

Optimal group work is so valuable, yet so rare that the question of how individuals can effectively collaborate in pursuit of shared goals is a continuing puzzle (West, 2004). While research in team development, group dynamics, and team effectiveness continues to provide valuable insights into groups, our understanding of the factors underlying optimal group work remains fragmentary. This article presents an approach based on the case of the professional chamber music ensemble (hereafter abbreviated as ensemble) – a unique form of work group that, over the centuries, has excelled at achieving a level of optimal group work that many others can only dream of.

Work groups can be defined as groups of people who work together in organisational contexts, performing tasks for which they have collective accountability (Hackman, 1990; West, 2004). Members assume a clear group identity, undertake clear differentiated tasks, share overall goals, and are mutually dependent for the completion of their tasks (Hackman, 1990, 2003; West, 2004). As work groups, ensembles perform complex and highly collaborative tasks: the nature of ensemble playing is such that a minor slip in coordination, even for a fraction of a second, is sufficient to undermine the quality of a performance. In this context, then, optimal group functioning refers to the state in which musicians achieve flawless synchrony with both precision and flexibility (Rasch, 1988) to form a cohesive sound, as exemplified by the performance depicted earlier.

The production process of such collective artistic endeavours entails not only musical factors, but a wide range of social and organisational factors akin to those present in other forms of groups (Blank & Davidson, 2007). Exploration into the group processes of successful professional ensembles can therefore reveal important insights into factors underlying effective group work. Existing studies on the group processes of ensembles, however, are limited at best, and have focused exclusively on ensembles involving instrumentalists: string quartets (Butterworth, 1990; Davidson & Good, 2002; Murnighan & Conlon, 1991), wind quintets (Ford & Davidson, 2003), and piano duos (Blank & Davidson, 2007). This article fills this gap by exploring the factors that underlie a professional vocal ensemble’s excellence as a work group.

Theoretical background

Chamber music, in the simplest sense, refers to music composed for two to ten instruments (or voices), traditionally performed without the direction of a conductor (King, 2006; Sicca, 2000). The typical chamber music composition involves no doubling up of parts or reinforcement of melodic lines; each part assumes a distinctive and independent role, with different though complementary musical responsibilities in the joint venture (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991; Sicca, 2000; Young & Colman, 1979). Musicians are therefore relatively equal in importance as the execution of each part is equally consequential to the overall performance. Given that ensemble playing entails a continuous, coordinated flow of simultaneous individual performances (Bensman, 1983), the level of coordination required is so high that ‘mis-timings even of a fraction of a second, minute hesitations, slight differences in intonation, tiny mis-adjustments of dynamics and so on are regarded as monumental blunders’ (Young & Colman, 1979, p. 12). This is further augmented by the transient and immediate nature of live performance. Simultaneously a process and a product, performances are subject to the risks of irreversible mistakes and slip-ups in front of real and critical audiences (Butterworth, Friedman, Kahn, & Wood, 1990; Tovstiga, Odenthal, & Goerner, 2005).

At the social level, an optimally synchronised ensemble performance calls for what Schutz (1951) terms the mutual tuning-in relationship. According to Schutz, when playing (or singing) together, musicians are orientated not only by the structures of the music, but reciprocally by their relationship with fellow performers. Beyond interpreting and executing their own parts, musicians must simultaneously anticipate co-performers’ interpretations of their parts, and others’ anticipations of their own execution. They must draw on tremendous awareness to hear themselves and co-performers in the succession of microseconds, mutually adapting their pitch, tempo, phrasing, and sonorities instantly, and must be prepared to be a leader or follower at any time with no communication other than the act of listening, seeing, and responding to each other and the music (Bensman, 1983; Schutz, 1951). Through this process, musicians co-create a collective experience, generating a shared lifeworld and a ‘mutual tuning-in relationship by which the “I” and “thou” are experienced by both participants as a “we” in vivid presence’ (Schutz, 1951, p. 79). This process, according to Cross (2012), not only generates collective musical behaviour, but also strengthens the affective attitudes and levels of engagement among participants, affording those involved an affiliative sense of shared purpose and meaning. The concept of mutual tuning-in relationship is echoed by Sicca’s (2000) notion of listening ability, which describes the way expert ensemble musicians listen simultaneously to themselves and co-performers to be perfectly in tune as a group. Sicca regards the process of constant mutual accommodation as a ‘voyage of self-discovery which … leads to a qualitative change in both the individual and the group’ (p. 153). This, Sicca contends, is the essence of making music together in an ensemble.

This level of music making necessitates a complex set of personal and interpersonal skills (Davidson & Good, 2002). At the personal level, self-knowledge and restraint are crucial (Sicca, 2000), as reflected in Adorno’s (1962, as cited in Sicca, 2000, p. 155) claim that the first lesson to learn about ensemble playing is ‘not to hog the limelight, but to be discreet and retiring’, and similarly, by Murnighan and Conlon’s (1991, p. 167) observation that the best ensembles ‘ask each player to have a soloist’s skills but not a soloist’s temperament’. At an interpersonal level, interpersonal awareness and mutual sensitivity are essential (Young & Colman, 1979). As Bastien and Hostager (1988) found, musicians’ ability to ‘tune-in’ or ‘listen’ is dependent upon shared knowledge and commonly adhered-to rules, established over time as they grow to understand each other better, learning what to expect from each other and how to meet each other’s expectations. This is also echoed by Miell’s (2006) claim that collaboration in music requires effective communication, shared knowledge about the task, and mutual understanding at a personal level. In this regard, in addition to being a work group, a high-performing ensemble entails qualities of what Lave and Wenger (1991) term community of practice, a social network characterised by the mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire that members develop and share over time in their common pursuit of a mutual interest, task, or profession (Wenger, 1998). According to Wenger, the key elements of mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire form the fabric of a relationship that drives effectiveness in any formal organisation. A key element that could serve to facilitate this relationship in a community of practice is legitimate peripheral participation, a process by which members are integrated into the community through exposure to all dimensions of the community, initially observing and participating in simple tasks before taking on core tasks central to the community’s functioning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). As participation progresses from peripheral to central, members become more involved in, and accepted by the community. Despite its direct reference to learning, this concept emphasises the importance of the following aspects to the functioning, sustenance, and development of such a community: horizontal interactions, broad access to various aspects of the activity, and transparent structures within the community.

In view of the intricate social demands of ensemble playing, the key issue to understand is how the level of group work required to achieve optimal functioning can be facilitated, achieved, and maintained. In the context of non-professional music making, it has been suggested that tasks requiring synchronous activities can strengthen social attachment and weaken psychological boundaries between the self and the group, thereby fostering social processes that facilitate group work (Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009). The studies of Anshel and Kipper (1988), Wiltermuth and Heath (2009), and Kirschner and Tomasello (2010), conducted on adult Israeli males, US students, and 4-year-old German children, respectively, discovered that the synchronisation required for collective music making contributes to cooperation and cohesion among group members. Any indication of the effects of synchronisation on social processes, however, is arguably not generalisable to all music groups, particularly professional groups, for which music making intertwines with the concept of work (Cottrell, 2004). In a professional context, performances carry not only artistic but also economic consequences, and can have a direct or indirect impact on reputation and careers (Bensman, 1983). Because of the high technical demands made upon professional musicians, the level of commitment required to play professionally, and the pressures of live performing (Cottrell, 2004), professional music making entails a deeper level of relations among musicians (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991; Seddon, 2005). For these reasons, the following review of group processes focuses exclusively on studies conducted with professional ensembles.

The first psychologists to discuss the relevance of group dynamics and small group research in the context of chamber music, Young and Colman (1979) provided a theoretical discussion on the issues of conflict, leadership, and audience effects within string quartets. In particular, they suggested the following features as central to the functioning of professional ensembles: nature of leadership, recognition of the existence of conflicts, and conflict resolution strategies. Though speculative, their work serves as an important basis for later studies. Subsequent empirical studies of ensembles have investigated the issues identified by Young and Colman. Findings on how successful ensembles managed these issues are decidedly mixed. For example, investigation into the management styles of ensembles revealed that, while some thrived on democratic leadership (Butterworth, 1990; Tovstiga et al., 2005), some thrived on autocratic leadership in which the leader has a final say in both artistic and administrative issues (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991), and yet others adopted a flexible leadership style with leadership roles being assumed by different members on an as-needed basis (Blank & Davidson, 2007). Similarly, explorations into issues of conflict produced equally diverse findings. While Blank and Davidson’s interview study of piano duos identified issues concerning musical interpretation as the main source of conflict, other studies have discovered that disagreements over interpretation rarely occurred (Butterworth, 1990). On the other hand, findings on conflict resolution strategies showed that, while some ensembles found discussions essential, others rarely talked about conflicts, believing that issues can be resolved through playing (Ford & Davidson, 2003).

In view of these findings, perhaps the fundamental implication is that every ensemble is unique – consisting of different individuals and bound by different contexts. Despite the disparities, however, a striking similarity across studies is apparent: a strong sense of collective commitment and shared aspiration, with musicians’ passion for music and performing so strong that everything else was secondary (Blank & Davidson, 2007; Butterworth, 1990; Murnighan & Conlon, 1991; Tovstiga et al., 2005). This is consistent with suggestions that a strong commitment to music is crucial both in enabling musicians to achieve a high standard of playing and in sustaining musical motivation throughout a career (Hallam, 2002; Kemp, 1996). Indeed, all ensembles seemed to have developed unique working models that were conducive to their functioning. Just as different ensembles can give the same musical composition different interpretations without sacrificing quality or musical integrity, perhaps the same can be said about the management of group processes. Yet, their collective commitment seemed strong enough to bind them together. Therefore, while these findings do not point to an ideal working model, they suggest collective commitment and shared aspiration as significant to the functioning of ensembles.

Taking into account Young and Colman’s (1979) claim that most features of the string quartet are applicable to other music ensembles, we can legitimately establish the relevance of the issues identified above for the present study. Yet, in the absence of existing studies on vocal ensembles, some fundamental differences between singers and instrumentalists require attention. At the outset, singers are unique in that their instruments are embodied, personal and invisible (Jenkins, 1996; Kemp, 1996). In performance, singers’ personalities are presented; they take complete ownership of everything that is produced with their voices (Kemp, 1996). Given the degree of self-assurance needed in vocal performance, singers tend to exhibit significant levels of independence. Furthermore, most singers enter the profession dreaming of a solo career leading to stardom – anything less is often deemed a failure, presenting a stark contrast to instrumentalists, who generally see their careers in terms of joining an orchestra (Jenkins, 1996). While this observation of career expectations validates previous findings that instrumentalists viewed ensemble playing as a platform for expressing their individuality as musicians (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991), it simultaneously suggests that the opposite could be true for ensemble singers. This generates a potential issue of identity in vocal ensembles. Furthermore, Hackman (2003) contends that the potential for conflict increases with the increase of group size, suggesting greater potential for conflicts in larger ensembles. As the subject of the present study is a vocal octet, these factors raise the additional question of whether a vocal ensemble involving eight singers entails a more complex set of dynamics than that of instrumental duos, quartets and quintets – the subjects of investigation in previous studies.

Research questions

Building on the frameworks outlined above, this study aims to investigate the organisational and social factors that underlie a professional vocal ensemble’s functioning as a work group.

Given the similarities identified from previous studies, it is hypothesised that a high level of collective commitment and shared aspiration can be expected. On the other hand, in view of the absence of existing studies on professional vocal ensembles and the inconclusive findings from previous studies, the investigation into working model and social processes remains exploratory.

The following general questions are pursued:

What are the factors and processes that enable a professional vocal ensemble to achieve excellence as a work group?

Are the features observable in the performance of ensembles reflected in their group processes?

Methodology

In view of the exploratory nature of the research questions and the lack of existing literature from which sufficient parallels could be drawn, a qualitative case study emerged as the preferred method of investigation. Qualitative case study enables rich, precise description and in-depth understanding of a chosen subject (Flick, 2006), and offers the potential for new discoveries (Denzin, 1989). The case study subject was selected on the basis of the level and quality of live performance that it is capable of consistently delivering. Individual semi-structured interviews were employed, reflecting the qualitative framework adopted and the intention to explore the phenomenon from individual perspectives rather than from the perspective of the group as a whole. By offering a potentially ‘safer’ environment for disclosure, individual interviews could capture a clearer picture of individual perceptions and experiences, generating a wider range of information than could be expected from group interviews. The potential drawbacks of conformity and groupthink typically associated with group interviews would similarly be eliminated. In addition, by providing multiple sources of data for comparison, the use of individual interviews in this context served to ensure validity through triangulation of data sources (Krefting, 1991). All procedures in the study were carried out by the author.

Participants

The Swingle Singers is a full-time professional a capella vocal ensemble based in London. Firmly established as a global leading a capella ensemble, the group is recognised as a pioneer in the artform of instrumental emulation with human voices. The group is unique among professional ensembles in several important ways: originality of its work and technique, history and longevity, independence of group identity from members who make up the group at any given time, and relatively high turnover of membership. Founded in Paris in 1963, the group rose to international fame with its vocalised jazz version of Bach’s fugues. It went on to adapt the works of major classical composers such as Mozart and Handel and, within 10 years, performed internationally, released 12 albums, and won five Grammy Awards. The original group disbanded in 1973, but was reformed soon after in London where it has remained an establishment ever since, with new members being replaced through auditions whenever a member leaves. At the time of the study, the group had had 75 members since formation. All works performed by the group are arranged specifically for them. Since its inception, the group has released 50 albums and gone on over 3500 tours around the world.

At the time of the study, the group comprised four male and four female singers, representing different vocal timbre and range: tenor 1 (Richard Eteson), tenor 2 (Christopher Jay), baritone (Kevin Fox), bass (Tobias Hug), soprano 1 (Joanna Goldsmith-Eteson), soprano 2 (Sara Brimer), alto 1 (Clare Wheeler), and alto 2 (Lucy Bailey). All joined the group at different times, with tenures ranging from 15 months to 10 years. The ages of the members ranged from 23 to 35.

Procedure

Participant recruitment

Initial contact with the group was established through informal conversations following a performance, after which a formal interview request was made by email. Basic information regarding the research – objectives, data collection procedures, ethical issues, and treatment of data – were discussed before interviews were arranged. Permission to record interviews was sought at this stage. Issues of confidentiality and anonymity were discussed, and all participants were unanimous in consenting to the revelation of both group and individual identities.

Interview schedule

An interview schedule was designed to establish the range and type of information being sought. In line with Hayes (2000), questions were designed to allow open-ended responses. The interview schedule was piloted with a singer with extensive experience with various professional vocal ensembles. Following adjustments, a final interview schedule was formulated to explore the following key topics:

individual background and experience

nature of the job

job responsibilities

perceptions towards the job and musical role

rewards and challenges

personal career aspirations

features of the group

organisation of the group

leadership and task distribution

administrative issues

artistic management issues – rehearsals, repertoire, performance preparation

group vision

requirements of good ensemble singing

similarity/diversity of members

issues of identity

interpersonal relationships

conflicts and conflict resolution strategies

strategies for success

The interview schedule was primarily made up of open-ended questions and supplemented with fixed-response questions, follow-up questions, and probes to explore each of the key topics and their sub-topics. Designed as a guide to ensure general coherence of discussion topics, the schedule was intended to be referenced with flexibility and adaptation, contingent both on the flow and direction of the conversations and the emergence of data in the interviews.

Data collection

Semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out individually in a pre-booked conference room in the Business Design Centre, London. Interviews roughly followed the interview schedule. While each interview included a structured set of questions addressing the key areas identified in the interview schedule, direction of the interviews depended on interviewees’ experiences, inclinations, and interests. Exact questions used depended on both the flow of conversation and information that emerged from the interviews. Questions were also adapted and created as necessary in response to data that emerged in the process. Interviews lasted between 36 minutes and 70 minutes, with an average of 52 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed.

Data analysis

Thematic analysis of interview data was conducted inductively, in line with Braun and Clarke (2007) and Gibson and Brown (2009). As such, the final categories and sub-categories of findings were emergent rather than pre-defined, and were selected and defined to reflect the key categories of themes that emerged from the interviews. The initial analysis involved multiple readings of transcripts, followed by the analysis of texts to identify salient and frequently occurring data. All data were assigned codes. Themes were then identified from codes and organised into groups to represent different aspects of the data. The process was iterative, involving constant review, modification, and refinement of codes and themes to the point of data saturation. In the final analysis, themes were grouped into five key areas, and the following categories were defined, along with subcategories: group features, key aspects of performance preparation, organisation, interpersonal relationships, and perceptions and reflections.

Comparison of individual responses within each category yielded a high level of consistency. While differences in individual experiences and perceptions were documented, there were no conflicting accounts of the group’s organisation, interpersonal relationships, and performance preparation strategies. Therefore, unless otherwise stated, themes identified are cross-validated across all members and representative of the group as a whole.

Findings

Group features

Individual characteristics

Each member of the Swingle Singers is a highly accomplished singer with extensive training and performing experiences. Seven of the eight singers received formal music training at tertiary level and all had significant performing experiences at a high level prior to joining the group. Each went through a rigorous and competitive three-stage audition process to join the group. They took pride in their identities both as singers and as members of the group. All claimed to enjoy their respective parts, both in terms of tone quality and musical functions within the ensemble. Beyond technical abilities, members exhibited a high level of professionalism, taking responsibility for their own learning and for executing their work to the highest level possible. Similarly, members appeared internally motivated, and showed unwavering commitment to the success of the group.

Member composition

Members represented a wide range of musical interests, expertise and training background in different genres of music: classical, jazz, musical theatre, choral, and beatbox. Asked if this was a source of conflict, members instead credited the diversity as being a rich resource, claiming that the mixture of talents and skills was ‘what makes the group so amazing’. Members regarded this factor as the very basis of their capacity as an ensemble, and as their key source of energy that continually motivates and drives the group to new heights.

Key aspects of performance preparation

Artistic considerations and strategies

With regard to repertoire choice, members emphasised the need to ‘do the music that represents us’. As Tobias claimed:

You want to always be able to perform with integrity and fun and be truthful to yourself. So it’s important to do some soul searching, to know who you are and who these eight people in the group are.

Therefore, in developing concert programmes and commissioning new arrangements, efforts were always made to ensure the chosen repertoire would not only reflect the identity of the group, but showcase members’ individual talents. On the other hand, members stressed the need to be versatile, flexible, open, and to ‘never stop exploring’, as ‘our key task is to maintain the tradition while staying relevant. We’re not just a tribute group. We need to continue to renew.

Production process

In the typical production process of a song, members would have learned their respective parts before the first rehearsal together. Different rehearsals were led by different members, contingent on the songs being rehearsed and members’ respective expertise. In most ways, though, the production process would always be a joint venture.

We spend large amounts of time discussing interpretational and technical issues in order to find the collective way. We check out and watch each other to make sure that we’re all doing what we’re supposed to be doing. For example, making sure that the note lengths are the same so that no one’s hanging over, making sure that the vowels match … Different people will point out different things. We talk about these a lot; we exchange ideas and give each other constructive criticism to make sure we get it perfect. (Kevin)

Characteristics of good ensemble singing

Ensemble singing, according to members, is characterised by ‘a proper balance between give and take’, which requires extreme control, awareness, and the ability to make instant accommodation – all of which are facilitated by good listening skills and flexibility. Singers must ‘be able to change as required, to find the collective way’.

It’s about having a good ear and translating what you hear to what you do. And that needs to be instantaneous; it needs to be almost intuitive, happening so automatically that when you hear somebody making a diminuendo you match it instantly. (Richard)

On the other hand, the ability to understand and correctly establish not only one’s own, but others’ roles at a given time, whether as a leader or a supporter, and perform accordingly, was cited as crucial.

In pieces where all eight voices of the group are representing one instrument, you are collectively taking the spotlight … If we did Clair de Lune by Debussy, we are all representing one piano … Here your part is just a ‘dun’ throughout, and it needs to be so coordinated for the arpeggio to create the whole tune of Clair de Lune. In that case, you are one small part of an overall thing. Another kind is when you have a soloist … when someone is required to step out from the shadow and take the spotlight, and everyone else is supporting them in the background. (Richard)

Organisation

Leadership model

The organisational model adopted was one of shared leadership and self-governance. Leadership was shared and spread across the group in a ‘democratic partnership’, both in artistic and administrative issues. Members unanimously claimed that the group was not led by a single person, and that ‘at any time, it is the eight members of the group who decide which direction we’re going in and what we want to be doing.

Task distribution

Members were divided into four main teams, each representing a core function of the group – Music, Concert Management, Operations/Business, and Marketing. Each team comprised three members, with one acting as the leader, or ‘point of contact’ and the other two as deputies. Assignment to teams was based on members’ interests and preferences, and was intended to remain flexible. Jobs were designed to be rotated in order to ‘spread the learning experience around’ and to ‘enable anyone to move on to other areas if they want to’. The rationale of this model was to ‘acknowledge people’s different strengths and interests’ and ensure that ‘anybody should be able to do any of the jobs in the group so that no one person is indispensible’. However, having developed this model only a year ago, members recognised the need to keep it in constant review and to make adaptations as necessary. Beyond the core operating model, the need for temporary leadership roles emerged occasionally, and would be taken on an as-needed and flexible basis.

Decision making

The approach to decision making was task-dependent. While more trivial decisions could be made by a person or a given team to ensure efficiency, important decisions were made communally. Decisions regarding repertoire selection, for instance, involved all members, during which ‘everyone will have a say and will contribute ideas’. Final decisions on such issues would be made through voting. Decisions regarding artistic matters such as repertoire choice and interpretations were mostly unanimous because members were ‘very much on the same page artistically’. Decisions regarding business matters, on the other hand, presented more challenges.

Our business ability is atrocious. We are eight musicians trying to be a business. And it can be a nightmare because everyone has an opinion, which is quite often not based on facts. And we are inexperienced … So often we are making decisions blindly and we just have to do the best we can. (Christopher)

Members were however aware of their limitations and recognised that ‘at the end of the day everyone’s intentions are for the interests of the group. Likewise, while the option of employing a business manager had been explored, members decided against it, preferring to ‘work a bit harder as a team’.

Past crisis

The current horizontal organisational model had only been put in place a year before the study. Since its inception, the group had been led by an artistic musical director. Under this model, decisions often rested in the hands of one or two people. Problems emerged a few years ago when ‘there wasn’t a right person who could fill the role’. The person in-charge at that time ‘did not have the people skills’, ‘did not have the artistic vision the group needed’, and ‘refused to take our suggestions on board’. Members who were in the group at that time recalled it as a difficult period. The time came when

we decided this wasn’t working properly. We were not happy. We had a meeting, and we realised that we are a completely new group and we don’t have to do what the group has been doing for 45 years. We can have a clear table. These eight people are committed and no one’s leaving right now, so let’s re-organise ourselves and have a new system. (Tobias)

Implications of organisational model

Comparing both models, members admitted that, while the old model may have been more efficient, the new model was a better reflection of what worked best for current members. Ultimately, members agreed that, by giving everyone a voice, the present model ‘makes everyone happier’, ‘creates a better resonance between self and group identities’, and ‘makes the whole experience so much more rewarding and worthwhile’. As Joanna reflected:

When I first joined, it was hard to understand that this is something that belongs to me as well … but now that you actually have a voice and can say what you think about something or suggest a way of doing things differently, you know that you actually have some control in where the group is going. It’s far more fulfilling than just have a boss telling you what to do.

Yet, perhaps the most critical feature of the group’s organisation lies in the following claim:

We recognise that you have to work out what is best for the current people in the group. You can’t have a system and expect it to stay forever. You need to always be open, flexible, and adaptive. So, yes, we make changes all the time. (Richard)

Interpersonal relations

Relationships

For a full-time touring ensemble that ‘spends more time together than not’, healthy relationships are vital. Indeed, interview data, coupled with impressions from informal observations, confirmed that interpersonal relationships were harmonious. At both the personal and professional levels, members showed high levels of respect and trust for each other, and expressed appreciation for each others’ talents and strengths. All regarded each other as very close friends and described their relationship as similar to that of a family.

The group is a bit like a family. You see each other at your best and at your worst. The other singers are the first to see you in the morning, see how you respond to stressful situations and are there as you go through life’s challenges together, away from home. (Clare)

Members recognised a healthy relationship as the basis for producing a first-rate ensemble performance, and acknowledged that any tension within the group would show in a performance. They further believed that, ultimately, it is the chemistry among performers that distinguishes a ‘magical’ performance from a ‘technically perfect’ performance. Members were therefore ‘really committed to making the relationship work’.

Conflicts and conflict resolution strategies

Despite the level of harmony the group experienced, members acknowledged that ‘as in any relationship and in any family, conflicts do arise. In particular, as members concurred, the nature of interaction inherent in a full-time touring ensemble rendered conflicts unavoidable.

We see each other at all hours of the day. We see people when they are hungry, when they are moody, when we have had two hours of sleep, when we have been on a long haul flight … we see people at their absolute worst. (Joanna)

Members recognised that complete agreement on every issue was impossible, and in fact undesirable, and claimed to ‘choose their battles’ in situations of conflicts. Such instances served as important moments during which they would reflect on what was important and what truly mattered. Similarly, members saw conflict situations as opportunities that triggered reflections on their own behaviour and tendencies, with many admitting that conflicts were often caused by them ‘being unnecessarily defensive’. Hence, depending on the issue of conflict, strategies ranged from ‘letting the issue go’ to ‘bringing up the issue for discussion’. Concurring that most instances of conflicts were indeed preventable, members claimed to have learned to ‘make allowances and accommodation for each other’, ‘not to take things personally’, and to ‘communicate in ways that will be taken well’. On the other hand, with issues that required addressing, the horizontal nature of the group meant that problems needed to be addressed in specific ways.

We are not like a business where someone at the top can say ‘sort it out or you are fired’. That is not how it happens in this group. We are all together. So you need to address the issue as gently as possible but also firmly so it gets addressed. And that’s difficult. It takes time. (Christopher)

As such, the magnitude and frequency of conflicts have reduced as members have grown together as a team, learning more effective ways of working and interacting with each other. Now, with an ‘open-door, transparent policy where we are able to say whatever we want to each other’, conflicts are ‘significantly rarer’.

We don’t tend to get into heavy conflicts, not anymore. We have had some periods when we definitely got way beyond just disagreeing and got into arguments … when tempers flared, when there were tears … now they are nothing major and usually get resolved quickly. (Kevin)

Relationship maintenance strategies

Members recognised that, fundamentally, they are individuals with different personalities, preferences, and working styles, and that these disparities must be managed to minimise conflicts and tensions. Learning to accept each other and making mutual accommodations was quoted as a vital first step in establishing a viable relationship.

It’s a constant balance of accepting each other for all our great qualities as well as our quirks and weaknesses, whilst trying to be self aware and work on how we interact with each other when we are under pressure. (Clare)

Members further cited open communication, mutual understanding, respect, conscientiousness, perceptiveness, sensitivity, patience, and respect for personal space as keys to maintaining a healthy relationship. In particular, given the full-time nature of the group, members emphasised that ‘though we are very close, having our own space at times is very important. We always try to keep that in perspective and be perceptive and respectful towards each other’. Notably, members commented that by providing sufficient company yet sufficient room for personal space, the group size was conducive for inter-personal relationships. As Kevin, who had spent nine years with a professional vocal quartet prior to joining the group, observed: ‘if you need your own space, you can do that without feeling like you are excluding anyone’. Beyond these aspects, awareness of one’s own temperament and behavioural tendencies, being open to ideas and suggestions, learning not to take things personally, and not being unnecessarily defensive were likewise quoted as vital. Most importantly, even though the relationship within the group appeared to be one of harmony, and members expressed satisfaction with their interpersonal relationships, all claimed to be on a continuous journey of ‘learning how to work with each other better’. Members acknowledged that maintaining healthy interpersonal relationships and capturing ‘the perfect chemistry’ required constant work and effort, with the need most pronounced during periods of member change.

Every time a new person joins, the relationship basically starts from zero. Even when things are going well, it’s not just about integrating them into the whole. There’s always a sense of us all pulling apart and coming back fresh. And that’s a challenge for people who’ve been in the group for a long time. It’s not the sense that someone new keeps joining, but the sense that they themselves and the group itself has to start over every time. It’s emotional and takes a lot of energy and effort to go through that process over and over again. But it’s healthy, and it’s necessary. That’s how the group progresses. (Kevin)

Perceptions and reflections

Identity

In discussion of the issue of identity in relation to the nature of ensembles, members were asked about the feelings associated with being ‘one eighth of an identity’. Members contended that being ‘part of a legendary group was an extreme privilege’, and further elaborated on the rewards of ensemble singing: companionship, support, mutual interdependencies, interaction on stage, and the pleasure of contributing to something bigger than oneself.

When you’re part of a team, you’re only as strong as your weakest link. So you all have a responsibility to each other, and to make something the best it can be, everyone relies on everyone. And in the process you help each other through things. (Joanna)

It feels great, it’s absolutely amazing when you can say, wow, my one beat is absolutely crucial to the overall effect, but of course, you know that without the other seven voices it wouldn’t work. (Richard)

Members agreed that ‘a group like this has no room for divas’, and that having good team players was crucial for the proper functioning of the group – musically, business-wise, and relationship-wise. Most members claimed to have a behavioural penchant for ‘collaborating rather than leading’, and many claimed to have developed, very early on, a preference for a career as an ensemble singer over one as a soloist, with Joanna citing that ‘as a soloist, it can be quite lonely’. Nevertheless, two members admitted that ensemble singing, particularly with singers of comparable standard, posed some initial challenges, but both claimed to have come to embrace the nature and rewards of being part of the group. As Sara reflected:

I hate to say it (but) I guess I was a diva before. Before I joined I was in a pretty good choir where I had to lead a lot. Here I don’t. We lead each other, and being told what to do was quite an experience for me. But it’s good now.

Identity: Striking a balance

Yet, room for expression of individuality was not entirely absent, as repertoire choice and song arrangements were typically made in ways that would grant members equal shares of solo roles. This, for members, provided the perfect balance between solo and ensemble temperaments and, as such, maintained the balance between individual and group identity.

We all get our five minutes on stage of ‘this is me, this is what I can do, this is my voice’. And then you step back and let someone else take it and you support them. And it’s really good to have both sides of that, to be able to swap and change, and not just being the big soloist or just staying in the background. (Lucy)

Most significantly, as Tobias’s claim reflects:

The nicest thing about this group is that whatever we do, it feels like we are making music together – always. So who has the solo really doesn’t matter at all.

Passion and commitment to excellence

Members’ unwavering passion for their job was evident throughout the study. All unanimously cited singing and performing as their raison d’être and therefore regarded their work as inherently satisfying and rewarding.

It’s an automatic, instant product, it’s practising something, putting time into something and then being able to see the results and have it appreciated … It’s a chance to bring your specific talent and use it into the limelight and really feel worthy of something, really feel like you’re useful, and to produce something that’s just beautiful and makes people happy. (Sara)

This, members agreed, was the key element that bound them together.

Challenges and realities of life as a touring musician: Managing paradoxes

Members claimed to highly enjoy their jobs, citing the level of musicianship experienced, extensive travels, range of concert repertoire, and opportunities to perform at world-class venues as privileges unrivalled by other jobs in the performing arts. However, members agreed that the job was extremely challenging, entailing not only the artistic aspects of learning, rehearsing, and performing, but also the management of the group as a business. As a full-time touring ensemble, it required nothing less than total commitment. As Richard explained: ‘when you’re in the Swingle Singers, it consumes you. If your best friend’s wedding clashes with a tour, you will have to miss the wedding’, and therefore, ‘it’s not just a job, it’s a way of life’. Hence, while seeing their job as a ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’ which was ‘worth all the sacrifices and challenges’, members acknowledged that it was not sustainable as a long-term job, citing five years as an ideal length of time to be in the group. As Richard, who at the time of interview was planning to leave after 10 years in the group, claimed:

The nature of this job is such that when you’re in it you give it everything. But when you come to a point when you want to move on to other things in life, it’s time to make a decision.

Discussion

Participants’ detailed accounts and reflections have provided valuable insights into the internal functioning of a professional ensemble. At the outset, the shared, democratic leadership model adopted is striking. Not only does it entail a horizontal relationship among members, it serves as a crucial precondition for making music together. Much of the social and organisational aspects of the group are indeed consistent with Lave and Wenger’s (1991) and Wenger’s (1998) notion of communities of practice, exemplifying characteristics of mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire. Similarly, the horizontal relationships among members, the equal distribution of power in the management of the group, and transparency of the group structures resonate highly with the concept of legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). From many angles, these features appear fundamental to their success as a group. However, an entirely different leadership model had steered the group for almost 50 years, throughout which it had consistently thrived as a world-class ensemble. Undoubtedly, members who have been through both models unanimously expressed greater satisfaction with the current model. Yet, in the absence of comparable sources to assess the success of the current group against that of previous years, caution must be taken in drawing any conclusions regarding the effects of leadership model on the group’s success. Nevertheless, it seems apt to regard the current model as a promising one.

What, then, can account for the Swingle Singers’ excellence? Many factors emerge as feasible explanations for their success: high levels of competency, diversity of talents, behavioural penchant for collaborative work, inherited prestige, common aspiration, and leadership model. Yet, while the interaction of these factors indisputably contributed to their success, it takes more to excel as an ensemble. Most significantly, as members confessed, the group lacked the relevant business skills and experiences crucial for its proper management. In this sense, the group was neither well structured nor well staffed as a business. Their viability as an ensemble, however, depends on more than musical expertise. Yet, the nature of professional ensembles is such that they cannot be recomposed simply for a certain lack of skills beyond musical ones. As the ultimate task for an ensemble is the music they play, composition of such a group is always musically driven. Any weaknesses within the group must be managed or compensated for among the same group of people. Re-recruiting a new member to compensate for the lack of accounting skills, for example, is simply out of question. Perhaps, then, in the face of some inherent limitations, other factors could account for the group’s excellence. In this respect, one element becomes salient: shared aspiration and collective commitment to excellence. Consistent with previous studies on ensembles (Blank & Davidson, 2007; Butterworth, 1990; Murnighan & Conlon, 1991; Tovstiga et al., 2005), the task of ensemble singing was so inherently rewarding for members that they appeared to be collectively committed to doing whatever it took to ensure the success of the group, whether it was overcoming diversity, accepting each others’ weaknesses, or acquiring new personal skills. This is best reflected by the following statement:

It’s really nice to be in a group of like-minded people. I think that’s just the biggest thing that makes us successful. Really do, because we all have the same goal in mind. Maybe different ways on how we get to the goal, but nevertheless, the same goal in mind, so we can see how everybody else thinks and feels about how to get there so it’s fine. (Sara)

This supports the hypothesis that shared aspiration and collective commitment are significant to the functioning of a professional ensemble. On another level, it appears to support Cross’s (2012) suggestion that the process of collective music making generates an affiliative sense of shared purpose and meaning. Nevertheless, despite the existence of strong collective commitment and aspiration, the question of how eight singers can manage to work towards their collective aspiration and excel as a group remains. This leads to further exploration beyond the whats to the hows of the group and, consequently, to the suggestion that what accounts for their success as a group lies in the very same skills that they need for their task on stage. It is apparent that, at various levels, what can be said about their performances can equally apply to how they manage themselves. Firstly, the non-hierarchical nature of their repertoire reflects both the nature of their interpersonal relationships and their chosen leadership model. While no sign of domination could be observed in their performances, the same can be said about their organisation and relationships. Similarly, while the words ‘harmony’ and ‘perfect coordination’ can be used to describe their performances, the same can be said about their interpersonal relationships. Yet, in both contexts, harmony and coordination would not be achieved without conscious and continuous effort from every member of the group.

Consistent with Schutz’s (1951) notion of mutual tuning-in and Sicca’s (2000) notion of listening, members’ accounts of the requirements and processes of ensemble singing highlight the need for self awareness and awareness of others in order to make mutual adaptations in the best collective interest. Together, these point to the following sets of personal skills: self knowledge and restraint (Sicca, 2000), and interpersonal skills: interpersonal awareness and mutual sensitivity (Miell, 2006; Young & Colman, 1979), all of which are crucial for a group of such a highly interdependent nature, both musically and socially. While these qualities could be observed in their performance, it appears that the very same qualities can be credited for the harmonious relationship they enjoy. Members’ self awareness is most striking in the recognition and admission of their own weaknesses and behavioural penchants, such as their admission of the tendency to be unnecessarily defensive when confronted. Similarly, they were aware of the need to control their own tendencies, to ‘remind ourselves not to let the automatic reflex take over’. Furthermore, members showed tremendous interpersonal awareness and mutual sensitivity, recognising the diversity of personalities and preferences within the group, and the need to respect, accept, and make mutual accommodations for each other. Another key feature of ensemble singing is evident in the way members ‘suspend judgement’. In discussing their work model, for instance, members unanimously claimed to be happy with the current model. Yet, none made a judgement on its value, and instead claimed it as being under ‘constant review’. Members further emphasised the need to be flexible and adaptable enough to make changes as situations necessitate – yet another reflection of the skills required in ensemble singing: constant awareness of situations and readiness to make instant changes as necessary. Therefore, while the strong internal motivation and commitment to music displayed by members support Kemp’s (1996) and Hallam’s (2002) suggestion that these factors play an important part in enabling musicians to achieve a high standard of playing and in sustaining musical motivation throughout a career, the personal and interpersonal skills identified above could explain how they collectively do so as an ensemble. This leads to the suggestion that, with a strong collective commitment to excellence in place, it is the very set of personal and interpersonal skills required of ensemble singing – self awareness, restraint, interpersonal awareness, and mutual sensitivity – that enable the group to achieve such a high level of harmony both on and off stage. However, this study is of such a novel and exploratory nature that it leaves room for more to be explored.

Reflections and suggestions for future research

Though exploratory, this case study has provided valuable insights into the group processes of a professional vocal ensemble. Semi-structured individual interviews have proved effective in generating insightful data. Even though interviews were employed as the sole data collection method, informal observations of the group on four different occasions (two concerts, a rehearsal and a music workshop) served as a source of data validation. However, for the purposes of future research, formal observational methods could be of considerable value. In view of the interdependent nature of ensemble performance, observation of the interactions among musicians could significantly aid the understanding of how they work together. In addition, the current study captures the group at only one point in time and, specifically, at a time during which it appeared to be in a state of stability. Therefore, the current findings may present a somewhat biased view of the group. A more comprehensive picture could be obtained from a longitudinal study. On the other hand, even though the method employed in the current study does not provide sufficient means to test the relationship between synchronisation and social processes, cooperation and cohesion were nevertheless observed, resonating with the findings of Anshel and Kipper (1988), Wiltermuth and Heath (2009), and Kirschner and Tomasello (2010). Specifically, the suggestion that the same set of skills can be credited for the group’s strengths both on and off stage provides an interesting point for consideration in future research on the relationship between synchronisation and social processes.

Conclusion

This study explored the factors that enable a professional vocal ensemble to achieve excellence as a work group. Findings revealed a wide range of information about the functioning of the ensemble, including member characteristics, leadership models, task distribution, decision making, relationships, conflicts and conflict resolution strategies, artistic production process, characteristics of good ensemble singing, group aspirations, management of identity, and challenges as musicians. In particular, consistent with previous studies on professional chamber music ensembles, members’ collective commitment to excellence was striking. Close inspection of the task of ensemble singing and members’ group processes further revealed a unique set of personal and interpersonal skills that was evident both on and off stage: self awareness, restraint, interpersonal awareness, and mutual sensitivity, leading to the suggestion that this very set of skills is crucial in enabling musicians to collaborate in pursuit of their collective artistic endeavours. However, in view of the exploratory nature of this study, further research is needed before these suggestions can be validated. In the spirit of the group, ‘at the moment, it’s unfair to give a judgment. It’s still new, and we are constantly reviewing it’ (Christopher – on the group’s model of management).

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Adorno

T. W.

(1962). Einleitung in die musiksoziologie. Zwolf theoretische Vorlesungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Cited in: Sicca

L. M.

(2000). Chamber music and organization theory: Some typical organizational phenomena seen under the microscope. Studies in Cultures, Organisations and Societies, 6, 145–168.

Anshel

Kipper

D. A.

(1988). The influence of group singing on trust and cooperation. Journal of Music Therapy, 3, 145−155.

Bastien

Hostager

(1988). Jazz as a process of organisational innovation. Communication Research, 15(5), 582–602.

Bensman

(1983). Introduction: The phenomenology and sociology of the performing arts. In Kamerman

J. B.

Martorella

(Eds.), Performers and performances: The social organisation of artistic work (pp. 2–37). New York: Praeger.

Blank

Davidson

(2007). Musical and social factors in piano duo collaborations. Psychology of Music, 35(2), 231–248.

Braun

Clarke

(2007). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Butterworth

(1990). Detroit string quartet. In Hackman

J. R.

(Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don’t) (pp. 224–207). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Butterworth

Friedman

S. D.

Kahn

W. A.

Wood

J. D.

(1990). Summary: Performing groups. In Hackman

J. R.

(Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don’t) (pp. 280–287). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cottrell

(2004). Professional music-making in London. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.

10.

Cross

(2012). Music as a social and cognitive process. In Rebuschat

Rohrmeiei

Hawkins

Cross

(Eds.), Language and music as cognitive systems (pp. 315–328). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Davidson

J. W.

Good

J. M.

(2002). Social and musical co-ordination between members of a string quartet: An exploratory study. Psychology of Music, 30(2), 186–201.

12.

Denzin

N. K.

(1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

13.

Flick

(2006). An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Ford

L. F.

Davidson

J. W.

(2003). An investigation of members’ roles in wind quintets. Psychology of Music, 31(1), 53–74.

15.

Gibson

W. J.

Brown

(2009). Working with qualitative data. London: Sage.

16.

Hackman

J. R.

(1990). Work teams in organisations: An orienting framework. In Hackman

J. R.

(Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don’t) (pp. 1–14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

17.

Hackman

J. R.

(2003). Imperatives for leaders. Leadership, 3, 1–14.

18.

Hallam

(2002). Musical motivation: Towards a model synthesizing the research. Music Education Research, 4(2), 225–244.

19.

Hayes

(2000). Doing psychological research: Gathering and analysing data. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

20.

Jenkins

(1996). The singer. In Ford

(Ed.), The Musician’s Handbook (pp. 29–35). London: Rhinegold.

21.

Kemp

(1996). The musical temperament: Psychology and personality of musicians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

22.

King

E. C.

(2006). The roles of student musicians in quartet rehearsals. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 262–282.

23.

Kirschner

Tomasello

(2010). Joint music making promotes prosocial behaviour in 4-year-old children. Evolution of Human Behaviour, 31(5), 354–364.

24.

Krefting

(1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222.

25.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Miell

(2006). Musical collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 147.

27.

Murnighan

J. K.

Conlon

D. E.

(1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 165–186.

28.

Rasch

R. A.

(1988). Timing and synchronization in ensemble performance. In Sloboda

J. A.

(Ed.), Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition (pp. 70–90). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

29.

Schutz

(1951). Making music together: A study in social relationship. Social Research, 18(1/4), 76–97.

30.

Seddon

F. A.

(2005). Modes of communication during jazz improvisation. British Journal of Music Education, 22(1), 47–61.

31.

Sicca

L. M.

(2000). Chamber music and organization theory: Some typical organizational phenomena seen under the microscope. Studies in Cultures, Organisations and Societies, 6, 145–168.

32.

Tovstiga

Odenthal

Goerner

(2005). Sensemaking and learning in complex organisations: The string quartet revisited. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 1(3), 215–230.

33.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

34.

West

M. A.

(2004). Effective teamwork: Practical lessons from organizational research. Oxford: Blackwell.

35.

Wiltermuth

S. S.

Heath

(2009). Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological Science, 20, 1–5.

36.

Young

V. M.

Colman

A. M.

(1979). Some psychological processes in string quartets. Psychology of Music, 7(1), 12–18.